Lardinio

Nikon D300 & D50, 80-200/2.8 and 60/2.8 Micro both Nikkors, Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Sigma 50/1.4 HSM & 10-20/4-5.6 HSM. Just an amateur currently, learning about stuff and suffering from a bit of lens lust. I got into DSLRs to take pics of my kids growing up ie reportage and portraits, but have since got into sports. I have an interest in wedding photography and would like to develop that (perhaps commercially) and am toying with landscapes.

Comments

photomedium: If you pitch an M43 camera as being small and super fast I wouldn't show it looking like a D5 with huge f1.2 lenses. The whole setup seems to be the size of a d810.I am not sure if the iso is good enough for sports either.Other than that is a fantastic piece of hardware.

@photomedium. Funny thing is I don't have this camera. I have a D700! I may buy it, looks good. Either that or a GX8, cause lugging round the Nikon to shoot absolutely everything, even for a nice walk, is tiring.

photomedium: If you pitch an M43 camera as being small and super fast I wouldn't show it looking like a D5 with huge f1.2 lenses. The whole setup seems to be the size of a d810.I am not sure if the iso is good enough for sports either.Other than that is a fantastic piece of hardware.

@Photomedium 'As presented the camera is the size of a D810 end of story'

You mean that even though the D810 is 9% larger in width, 36% taller in height, 18% greater in depth, has approx twice the cubic volume and, for what it's worth, is roughly twice the weight, they are the same size??

You cannot argue for the grip, as you haven't added the D810 grip into your calcs.

Why don't you just say you were wrong, because you made the claim without researching it properly?

I agree with you other two statements about ISO and it being a fantastic piece of hardware though.

photomedium: If you pitch an M43 camera as being small and super fast I wouldn't show it looking like a D5 with huge f1.2 lenses. The whole setup seems to be the size of a d810.I am not sure if the iso is good enough for sports either.Other than that is a fantastic piece of hardware.

Probably more of a difference than you would appreciate. The image above is deceptive.

matthew saville: The most shocking, unbelievable thing? The fact that it actually does look more like a D810 than a D7200. Plus, the fact that they finally omitted the pop-up flash. Clearly, a statement to all the D300 lovers / D7200 haters: this is how a true DX flagship is done.

The thing that makes me the happiest, though? That, after at least a half-dozen different iterations of (increasingly impressive) 24 MP DX sensors, Nikon still decided to bust out an all-new 21 MP sensor in order to optimize the balance of resolution, image quality, and shooting speed.

Bravo, Nikon, bravo.

This is not a "too late" camera either; it fits perfectly into the lineup: it's an affordable version of the D5, and a killer 2nd camera to someone who already owns any flagship, or a D810 or D750.

In other words, just because many folks have "upgraded" to FX doesn't mean this camera missed the boat. Because a serious photographer will either 1.) buy whichever camera does the job, or, 2.) own multiple cameras.

CIA Spook. I'm not a bird shooter, so I don't know if autofocus is a big issue with the way you shoot them. I presume you'd want it though. So please don't add a 2x converter onto that 200-500. Find yourself a used 1.4 and shoot away to your hearts content knowing you have a 1050mm (FF equivalent) autofocusing at f/8 and the ISO to pull it off in low light and still keep most detail and dynamic range.

matthew saville: The most shocking, unbelievable thing? The fact that it actually does look more like a D810 than a D7200. Plus, the fact that they finally omitted the pop-up flash. Clearly, a statement to all the D300 lovers / D7200 haters: this is how a true DX flagship is done.

The thing that makes me the happiest, though? That, after at least a half-dozen different iterations of (increasingly impressive) 24 MP DX sensors, Nikon still decided to bust out an all-new 21 MP sensor in order to optimize the balance of resolution, image quality, and shooting speed.

Bravo, Nikon, bravo.

This is not a "too late" camera either; it fits perfectly into the lineup: it's an affordable version of the D5, and a killer 2nd camera to someone who already owns any flagship, or a D810 or D750.

In other words, just because many folks have "upgraded" to FX doesn't mean this camera missed the boat. Because a serious photographer will either 1.) buy whichever camera does the job, or, 2.) own multiple cameras.

@CIASpook - I have a D700 too and thought my whole shooting strategy was going FX. Then they do this! Wow. I think the high-ISO on this baby's gonna blow my D700 away. At least by 2 stops, possibly more. This is a killer camera, Nikon have nailed it.

Rascati: Breaking News - Seattle, WADPR and Ken Rockwell are pleased to announce that they will be merging their sites now that actually holding and testing a camera are no longer necessary before writing about them. Gotta drive people to the site somehow. Why else would they leave this article on the front page if they weren't trying to stir the pot. Really inexcusable. Every camera and system has flaws or deficiencies in some way. So why do they choose to single this one out. The new site will be called the "DPR Enquirer". Before you start with the replies, please be advised that I'm ok with them stating this opinion. I'm having more issues with their journalistic approach vs the comments. I can't help but feel that they are leaving this article up just to get hits on the site.

Why have you got to test one before you can form an opinion of it? And they chose this camera because 1) it's a Nikon and a lot people get emotional and have interest in Nikon solutions and 2) very few people understand the Nikon strategy based on what they are seeing, not just the V3 either. The whole Nikon 1/CX platform.

So here's my opinion, because I have one (not a Nikon 1, but an opinion that is)

If the V3 was half the price (ie $500/600), I'd get it because it would make sense as an ocassional walk around/travel/second camera system. If the sensor was a DX and we could use existing Nikon lenses at their current lengths and it supported CLS, then I'd buy it at it's current price.

I just don't get who this camera is aimed for. It seems to me that unless you are a birder there are plenty of other systems out there that are better or less money or both.

I guess people are fustrated that Nikon don't give them what they want.

capanikon: I like it. I like the V1-style body. I like how a grip is option (ala Nikon FM2n or F3). I think Nikon is trying hard to satisfy too many people ... as an enthusiasts, this camera still has a ton of "noob" features such as tilt screen and touch screen and photo effects modes. I don't consider lack of EC dial to be a drawback but is instead a very positive thing!

Do you like the $1,200 price? And have you considered how many better camera systems you can get for much less money?

Scottelly: $650. That's $150 less than the D5300, and the D3300 comes with a lens. Nice work Nikon. Still . . . I wish you could make a camera that can compete on price against the Sony A65! The A65 is only $500 without a lens, and only $600 with a lens (cheaper than this slow camera). And the Sony A65 has built-in GPS and a fold-out screen, like the Nikon D5300. One more very important feature most of the Sony cameras have is built-in image stabilization (in the camera body), something that should be a serious consideration for people trying to choose what entry-level camera to buy. Frankly I'd say Sony wins for the entry level photographer who doesn't expect to spend a lot of money on lenses in the future. Sony offers a few good upgrade options too.

But if you want a Nikon, this is a really good starter camera that can be used to capture very sharp, high quality photos, I'm sure.

Sony has always brought out cheaper innovative bodies, so they can snare you with their overpriced, average lenses. It's a cheap trick and Sony is a wizard at it.

I applaud Canon for having the guts to use an APS-C sensor in their mirrorless. I've been using Nikon for years and was appaled at their overpriced lump of sub micro 4/3's uselessness that they spewed onto the market with the launch of the Nikon 1. I still have yet to find a decent review of their product and even with the prices coming down have found no reason to purchase one. I'm not a 'pro' shooter, but I want a decent sensor, manual controls etc. I will NEVER invest in their CX format, but will remain loyal to Nikon for the DSLR's. Canon may have made a mistake by dumbing down their initial offering (it's hardly inspiring), but at least they have a good sensor and the right size to attract a decent audience. In my mind this is a great solution for those potential canon shooters who don't like the bulk of a DSLR but want optical performance and a system they can grow into. Nikon 1 users have no migration path at all. Stoopid.

Sdaniella: Looks like Sony has set the dinner buffet of sensor densities and Nikon has made its selections. Whilst Sony is chancing higher Mp for its higher APS-C model line and lower Mp for lower APS-C model line, Nikon has inverted it instead so lower models have higher Mp for lower APS-C model and maybe keep the lower Mp for its higher APS-C/FF models.

*Based on the above Nikon sensor density inversions:I would predict they will select for their upcoming D7100 (updated D7000) to be ~15.7Mp APS-C sensored and 15.4Mp effective (4800 x 3200 Image).

So you think the D7100 will have less pixels than D7000 and the D400 no increase at all? Ummmmm. I would hazard a guess that both D7100 and D400 (if indeed these models are produced, this year or at all) will have a minimum of 18mp and probably the same 24mp sensor with improved image processing pipeline offering higher ISO capability.